For UT Alum regarding the housing crisis of 08

[UT alum]

3 hours ago, stevenash said:

Precisely-  How did those zero down loans with no credit checks come about?

 

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

come on, UT Alum, you don't need a link from liberal academia to answer my last question.

Come on, Ash, all your quotes and links come from conservative academia, so what’s the point?

I guess Fannie and Freddie stuck a gun in Wall Street’s face and said do it, or else.

[UT alum]

3 hours ago, stevenash said:

Precisely-  How did those zero down loans with no credit checks come about?

 

 

How does that HUD publication bolster your position?

[stevenash]

6 minutes ago, UT alum said:

How does that HUD publication bolster your position?

By raising the "goals" of Fannie and Freddie toward less stringent lending standards.  You already stated that bad lending practices led to this debacle and it is more than obvious to most that the Fed was complicit in making that happen.

[UT alum]

14 minutes ago, stevenash said:

By raising the "goals" of Fannie and Freddie toward less stringent lending standards.  You already stated that bad lending practices led to this debacle and it is more than obvious to most that the Fed was complicit in making that happen.

[UT alum]

25 minutes ago, stevenash said:

By raising the "goals" of Fannie and Freddie toward less stringent lending standards.  You already stated that bad lending practices led to this debacle and it is more than obvious to most that the Fed was complicit in making that happen.

Still not selling me. Show me where low income foreclosure rates outstripped those of middle and upper income foreclosures when the bubble burst.

[stevenash]

If one guy buys house with 20% down and proven income and another busy a house with nothing down and undocumented income, which one of us is more likely to default?  If both default, which house is closer to a falling market value and hence, less likely to cause stress on the lender?  I will pose this question to you:  Why did fannie and Freddie have to go into government conservatorship?  I think you have got this all backwards.   It appears as though you believe that   some rich guy on wall street somehow forced all of the soon to default buyers to make purchases that they, in reality, could not handle.  My contention is this:  The guy who is qualified to buy a $100,000 home needs a $20,000 down payment by normal lending standards.  They guy who wants a $200,000 home needs $40,000 down by normal standards.  The guy who has no money down is NOT currently qualified to purchase a home.  Suddenly, the rules change.   The guy who is not qualified to buy a home buys one anyway.  The guy who is qualified to buy a $100,000 home, instead buys a $200,000 home.  The guy who was qualified for the $200,000 home, instead buys a $400,000 home.  This all comes about because of more liberal lending rules.  In these cases, there is a very good chance that all three default because they bought a champagne home based upon a beer pocketbook..  None of this happened because of the alleged greed of some Wall Street CEO.  Nobody held a gun to their head and made them buy.  If you think that is what happened, then you are telling me that the guy who weighs 400 pounds is in that position because some greedy restaurant owner and grocery store owner made him buy to much food to eat.  I dont think the government should have a say in how much food you eat.

[stevenash]

I would be much more interested in comparing foreclosure rates about 12 months before the bubble burst instead of after.

[UT alum]

54 minutes ago, UT alum said:

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

By raising the "goals" of Fannie and Freddie toward less stringent lending standards.  You already stated that bad lending practices led to this debacle and it is more than obvious to most that the Fed was complicit in making that happen.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Ok. I found something here that gives convincing information to me that using Freddie and Fannie to influence social policy rather than serve as a backstop to the legitimate private mortgage industry contributed to the crisis. Be sure and read the last paragraph, though.

[stevenash]

That is, essentially my overall premise when comparing conservatism to liberalism.  My personal feeling is that government is, in many instances, EXTREMELY ill qualified to "tweak" an essentially efficient marketplace.  We should, (once again in my opinion) try to keep government smaller and less intrusive into the daily lives of people.  The private markets are much more capable of solving their ills than a group of politicians who cant see eye to eye on anything as evidenced by the current shutdown situation.  Yes, there will always be an Enron or something like it.  But what about Montgomery Wards and Sears?  They failed because they couldnt keep up with the times rather than because some rich greedy guy caused the to go under.  I am also of the opinion that you cannot legislate away poverty and the bigger the government gets, the more abuses that can occur.

[Englebert]

2 hours ago, stevenash said:

That is, essentially my overall premise when comparing conservatism to liberalism.  My personal feeling is that government is, in many instances, EXTREMELY ill qualified to "tweak" an essentially efficient marketplace.  We should, (once again in my opinion) try to keep government smaller and less intrusive into the daily lives of people.  The private markets are much more capable of solving their ills than a group of politicians who cant see eye to eye on anything as evidenced by the current shutdown situation.  Yes, there will always be an Enron or something like it.  But what about Montgomery Wards and Sears?  They failed because they couldnt keep up with the times rather than because some rich greedy guy caused the to go under.  I am also of the opinion that you cannot legislate away poverty and the bigger the government gets, the more abuses that can absolutely positively will occur.

FIFY History has shown over and over and over that is fact and not opinion. But shockingly, more and more people keep clamoring for bigger government...begging to be controlled. I just don't get it.

Sorry to butt in on y'alls conversation. Carry on.

[UT alum]

13 hours ago, stevenash said:

That is, essentially my overall premise when comparing conservatism to liberalism.  My personal feeling is that government is, in many instances, EXTREMELY ill qualified to "tweak" an essentially efficient marketplace.  We should, (once again in my opinion) try to keep government smaller and less intrusive into the daily lives of people.  The private markets are much more capable of solving their ills than a group of politicians who cant see eye to eye on anything as evidenced by the current shutdown situation.  Yes, there will always be an Enron or something like it.  But what about Montgomery Wards and Sears?  They failed because they couldnt keep up with the times rather than because some rich greedy guy caused the to go under.  I am also of the opinion that you cannot legislate away poverty and the bigger the government gets, the more abuses that can occur.

The invisible hand is always depicted on the right as efficient and just. That may work in a mathematical equation, but throw people in (human nature) and that’s one variable that cannot be accounted for. Public oversight is necessary for the public good to be served.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

The invisible hand is always depicted on the right as efficient and just. That may work in a mathematical equation, but throw people in (human nature) and that’s one variable that cannot be accounted for. Public oversight is necessary for the public good to be served.

Do you need someone to oversee your life...I don't.

[UT alum]

12 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Do you need someone to oversee your life...I don't.

I didn't say personal oversight. There's a difference.  Big difference.

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I didn't say personal oversight. There's a difference.  Big difference.

Then explain, how will this oversight you speak of not impact me.

 

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

The invisible hand is always depicted on the right as efficient and just. That may work in a mathematical equation, but throw people in (human nature) and that’s one variable that cannot be accounted for. Public oversight is necessary for the public good to be served.

25 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Do you need someone to oversee your life...I don't.

To what degree.  I pose this to you again.  If a guy lets himself get to 400 pounds, does there need to be "oversight" for his own good?:  to help him live a full life?   Do we, through" oversight" ,try to control what the restauranteur and grocer sell to him?  Who is going to make that decision?  Sorry, but I don't trust Uncle Sam to handle something that personal responsibility will handle.  There MUST be limits to governmental oversight.  I think you know this but, because of your position, cannot acknowledge.